Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gianni Passakos v. County of Alameda; and Does 1-50

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 16, 2010

GIANNI PASSAKOS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; AND DOES 1-50 DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Claudia Wilken United States District Judge

DECLARATION AND EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER

I, Gregory J. Rockwell, Esq., as attorney of record for defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, hereby request that the Court continue the initial case management conference in the above action, currently set for December 21, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. to March 22, 2011, or to such later date that is available on the Court's calendar. The reasons for this request are set forth below.

In the past 30 days I have made several unsuccessful attempts to reach attorney Jeremy Cloyd of the Law Offices of Sanford M. Cipinko, attorneys for plaintiff herein, in order to discuss discovery issues which I anticipate will arise and may affect the progress of this action and the preparation of a joint case management conference. When I have called the law firm, I have reached a voicemail system, through which I was able to leave voice mail messages for Mr. Cloyd.

This morning I called again, and my call was answered by a receptionist, who informed me that Mr. Cloyd was no longer with the Cipinko law firm. When I explained that I needed to speak to the attorney who has taken over the handling of this lawsuit, I was advised that the representation 4 of the plaintiff was in the process of being transferred to another law firm and that there were no attorneys in the Cipinko law firm today who could speak to me. I was referred to Oakland attorney John E. Hill and was told that he would be substituting into the case for plaintiff.

I called Mr. Hill's office and was advised that he was in a mediation and would not be in the office today. I then spoke to a gentleman by the name of Jose Duran, who identified himself as Mr. Hill's paralegal. Mr. Duran advised me that Mr. Hill has met with the plaintiff, but no 10 substitution of attorneys has been signed. He also advised me that San Francisco attorney David Helbraun might take over representation of the plaintiff in this action. I advised Mr. Duran that, under the circumstances, I intended to make an ex parte application to the Court to continue the case management conference.

After speaking to Mr. Duran, I called attorney David Helbraun, who advised me that he has met with the plaintiff, but that he has not made a decision as to whether he will agree to represent 16 the plaintiff in this action. I advised Mr. Helbraun of my plan to request a continuance of the case management conference and asked if he had any objection to a continuance, and he said that he did 18 not, so long as I made it clear to the Court that he has not yet agreed to represent the plaintiff as yet.

This lawsuit arises from a physical altercation between the plaintiff and deputy sheriffs which occurred at the Santa Rita jail. The plaintiff has been charged with a violation California Penal Code § 148 as a result of that altercation. That criminal action is presently pending and has not been set for trial. I have been advised by the District Attorney's Office that the attorneys for 24 the plaintiff in the criminal action have recently filed a motion for an order permitting discovery of the personnel records of the deputies involved in the altercation. That motion is set to be heard on Based upon my experience in similar cases, I anticipate that I will not be able to take the deposition of the plaintiff in this action until after the criminal case has been resolved.

January 18, 2011. No trial date will be set until after that motion has been heard and ruled upon.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed at Oakland, California on December 13, 2010.

Gregory J. Rockwell

ORDER

Good Cause appearing therefore, the Case Management Conference set for December 21, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. in action 10-04062CW is hereby continued to March 22, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. The 10 parties shall file a joint case management conference statement no later than March 15, 2011.

PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE

I, the undersigned, declare as follows:

I am employed in the County of Alameda, State of California. I am over the age of 18 5 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 555 12th Street, Suite 1800, P. O. Box 12925, Oakland, California 94604-2925.

On the date indicated below, at the above-referenced business location, I served the

DECLARATION AND EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER on the below-named party and caused said 10 document to be transmitted using ECF as specified by General Order No. 45 to the following 11 party:

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed at Oakland, California, on December 13, 2010.

Candace Hankins

20101216

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.